American Wave Machines v Surftown (CFI, 1 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_837/2024, UPC_CFI_349/2025 and UPC_CFI_394/2025, ACT_67723/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Presiding Judge Thomas and Judge Thom as judge rapporteur) classified as confidential, at the request of Surftown and the WhiteWater and Endless Surf companies, defendants to American Wave Machines’ infringement action on EP 2 728 089 B1, the technical details of the contested embodiment set out in their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation. Protection covers only what goes beyond the general information already public. The order shows how finely technical confidentiality is delimited.

Question

Can technical details partly disclosed through a screenshot and brief descriptions be protected, and who may access them on the patentee’s side?

Decision

On the basis of Art. 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP, the application is granted subject to conditions (paragraphs 1 to 4). Design details are confidential insofar as they are not public and go beyond the general information identified by the claimant (paragraphs 5 to 8). Access must be limited to what is necessary, with at least one natural person per party, according to each person’s role, the relevance of the information and their trustworthiness (paragraphs 9 and 10). The person put forward by American Wave Machines need not be an employee or an Art. 48 UPCA representative, but the role of an « external advisor » is not adequately explained (paragraph 11): access is for now restricted to the representatives and their assistants, and the claimant may supplement its explanations by 8 August 2025.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party nominating an outside adviser for the confidentiality club must describe precisely that person’s role in the dispute, otherwise access stays limited to the representatives.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 48 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262A

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9(1) and (2)(a).

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), NST v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_221/2025), QIAGEN v bioMérieux, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_181/2025).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.